DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an evaporation device configured to direct a refrigerant through the pressure vessel and at least one fluid direction device configured to direct a drinking fluid around the evaporation device in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the inlet and the outlet” but should instead read “an evaporation coil inlet and an evaporation coil outlet”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whittington (GB 2 343 243) in view of Osawa (JP 2001-294297, see attached English translation).
As to claims 1-2, 6, and 15, Whittington teaches an evaporator comprising:
a pressure vessel 10 comprising an inlet 17 configured to couple to a water source and an outlet 18 configured to fluidly couple to a beverage dispenser (Fig. 1); and
an evaporation device/coil 11 configured to direct a refrigerant through vessel 10; wherein a drinking fluid is directed around the evaporation device 11 to facilitate heat exchange, and the drinking fluid enters the vessel 10 via the inlet and exits the vessel 10 via the outlet 18 for dispensing (Fig. 1).
Whittington does not explicitly teach a fluid direction device as claimed. However, Osawa teaches using a baffle 7/9a-d for directing fluid flow around cooling coils in a pressure vessel to increase heat exchange capabilities (Figs. 1-3). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Whittington to incorporate a baffle as a fluid direction device as claimed and taught by Osawa in order to increase the cooling capacity of the apparatus.
As to claim 3, Whittington does not teach an evaporation coil structure as claimed. However, Osawa teaches using coils 5/6 with three portions arranged concentrically to increase heat transfer (Figs. 1-2). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Whittington to incorporate an evaporation coil as claimed and taught by Osawa in order to increase the cooling capacity of the apparatus.
As to claim 4, Whittington teaches the coil 11 in fluid connection with an evaporation coil inlet and an evaporation coil outlet (page 4, lines 10-15; coil 11 is part of a refrigeration system and therefore necessarily has an inlet and outlet as claimed).
As to claim 5, Osawa teaches the coil 11 having fins 9a-d (Fig. 1).
As to claim 7, Osawa teaches three baffles 9a-d as claimed (Fig. 1).
As to claim 8, the baffles of Osawa include openings to direct the fluid (Fig. 1).
As to claims 9-10, Osawa teaches the baffle having fins 9a-d (Fig. 1).
As to claim 11, Whittington does not include an intermediate fluid between the refrigerant and drinking fluid.
As to claims 12 and 16, Whittington teaches a pump 16.
As to claim 13, Whittington does not explicitly teach a temperature sensor as claimed. However, Official Notice is taken that use of a temperature sensor in an ice bank is a common and typical feature of a refrigeration system that would have been obvious to use in conjunction with the apparatus of Whittington for the purpose of monitoring and controlling the system to operate in a desirable manner.
As to claims 17-18, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejections above.
As to claims 19-20, Whittington teaches the evaporator 11 connected to a refrigeration circuit (page 4, lines 10-11) but is otherwise silent regarding the refrigeration components. However, it would have been an obvious design choice to modify the reference by having a condenser and/or a heat pipe, since applicant has not disclosed that having a particular refrigerant cooling configuration solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected result, and it appears that the system would perform equally well with any readily available means of cooling the refrigerant.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whittington and Osawa as applied above, and further in view of Fessler (US 4,934,150).
As to claim 14, Whittington does not explicitly teach a vessel cap. However, Fessler teaches use of such a vessel cap (Fig. 1). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Whittington to use a vessel cap as claimed and taught by Fessler in order to protect the contents of the vessel 10 from outside contamination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-11, filed 8/7/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Whittington (GB 2 343 243) and Osawa (JP 2001-294297) as discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-5199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)270-5054. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights